dyna mo |
07-20-2015 08:17 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua G
(Post 20528400)
im not really suggesting change. just a far away observation that a population in the 10s of millions voluntarily chooses to live in a region rife with earthquakes, fires, landslides & drought. reminds me of the people who live in new orleans, underneath the sea level, in a region rife with large hurricanes.
& ironic a state full of progressive environmentalists live in a region that is unable to sustain a giant population. i would think the tree hugging crowd who preaches sustainability would not be so hypocritical.
not to mention the surreal politics of water management where some federal agreement in 1920 whatever gives some people better "rights" over water than others. but the top 1% will keep watering their lawns, conservation & selflessness be damned!
:)
|
california could have been and should be a shiny beacon for how to do things right, i agree with that. i can't claim to know where it all went so wrong, maybe it is on account of this being the desert. water management here is just like planning for the future anywhere, humans are not really designed to pay now for future returns, that's the case everywhere, but yeah, we could have dealt with the water issues beginning in the '70s and not be in the drought predicament we are in now, but humans rarely can do that sort of thing.
and people live in fucked up regions all over the world. there are natural attractions here that come with the territory, surfing, skiing, etc, all are due to the nature here. i can see those things drawing people here, as opposed to a place like phoenix, which is very similar desert but absolutely nothing to do and loaded with people.
but if a few bazillionaires lose their $20 million cliffside homes in a flood and collect a fat payout, i'm not going to be bothered by that.
|